Retributive punishment rarely brings the satisfaction that we imagine it will. And so, more often than not, we conclude that the punishment just wasn’t enough. We envision torments heaped on torments. We imagine an eternal realm in which the most unbearable afflictions stretch out not for days or years or thousands of years, but forever. Anguish without end, Amen.
But the glee that comes from indulging in such imaginings is not something to cling to. It is toxic, cutting us off from the compassion that can bring peace. And yet I don’t blame our drive for revenge as such. The problem, I think, is that we have misunderstood the reason we’re not satisfied when an enemy is punished—even the punishment of death. We think it’s because our enemies haven’t suffered enough—the truth is that it’s because our enemies haven’t been redeemed.
…
And so my theory is this: at the root of our desire for retribution is the wish that those who have wronged us feel the full weight of what they have done, suffering remorse proportionate in severity to the gravity of their crime. In short, we hunger for their redemption. And so, when the retributive impulse is finally satisfied, it naturally resolves itself into forgiveness. The darkness is lifted, because the evil—the dissociation from the good that inspired the crime—has been destroyed.
A lethal injection, ending the life of a self-satisfied killer who remains unrepentant to the end, will not produce what our retributive impulses crave. And so we are left dissatisfied. And because we do not understand what we really need, what the impulse for retribution is really hungering for, we think inflicting even more suffering will do the trick.
…
So, is Osama bin Laden in hell? Yes, absolutely. But I will not be at peace, I will not believe that justice has been done, until he is redeemed.
—Eric Reitan, Beyond Retribution: Bin Laden’s Death in its Cosmic Context
via @eatingwords





